-50%
Solution
1.1
Employee Involvement
Acas (2021b) defines employee involvement as engaging employees in workplace decisions and activities while management retains the final authority. This is a process in which employees come up with ideas, suggestions, and participate in projects that involve planning their everyday working life. This approach helps in building relationships as both employees and management feel part of it, creating job satisfaction and trust among employees and managers. For instance, in the case study the organisation can create structured suggestion system or employee forums to gain insights regarding the changes the staff think could be helpful during the post-merger transition. By implementing these initiatives, it helps make employees feel included in the change process, reducing resistance in the process and promoting a collaborative work culture even after the leadership shift (Young, 2024).
Employee participation
Employee participation means employees engage in active decision making, as opposed to simply offering input (Lombard, 2024). It goes beyond consultation to decision making by formal structures involving trade unions, joint consultative committees and employee representation on boards. Participation builds relationships of mutual respect, shared accountability and trust between employees and managers. In addition, participation in policies and other workplace decisions increases the likelihood of employees supporting the organisational goals and maintaining harmony. In the case study, works councils could be implemented or trade union engagement strengthened to increase employees’ influence on key post-merger policies. This provides staff members with the feeling that their voices are heard and valued, eliminating uncertainty and sustaining a stable and well-coordinated working environment (Indeed, 2024).
Differences
Employee involvement and employee participation vary according to decision-making power, depth of engagement, and scope. Unlike employee involvement which is management driven and consultative, participation is employee based and gives them direct influence on decision making. The involvement is simply gathering of feedback through surveys or meetings, but participation is where employees are involved in the collective bargaining and employee representatives negotiate the policies (Willemse, 2023). Second, involvement is often informal and voluntary while participation usually involves formal structures for example trade unions or advisory committees. Seeking employee suggestions through engagement initiatives shows involvement while giving employees a voice in decision making bodies displays participation. However, participation gives employees more active part in the merger’s organisation changes, which promise long-term stability after the merger.
1.2
Union Employee Representation
Union representation is based on employees joining a trade union that bargains on their behalf in order to improve working conditions, pay and job security. For example, trade unions act as intermediaries between employers and employees and protect employees’ collective bargaining rights. Unions give the legal support, advocate for fair treatment and can take industrial action when this is necessary (CIPD, 2025b). For example, during the post-merger, a trade union would guarantee that employers stick to employment laws such as they cannot dismiss workers unfairly or change their contract to an employee’s disadvantage. Collective action is their power as it means increased influence of employees in decision making. This representation helps boost employees’ confidence in workplace relations as they are assured of fair treatment as the organisational environment changes.
Non-union Employee Representation
Non-union employee representation serves as a communications channel for employees to voice their concerns or participate in workplace decisions without joining a trade union. For example, an employee forum is an internal group of employees discussing workplace issues, making ideas for improvement, and interacting with management (Peters, 2020). For example, the new leadership post-merger can create employee forums to deal with the concerns of job security, restructuring, and workplace policies. By adopting this approach, there can be open dialogue encouraged between management and staff, building trust and ensuring transparency.
Similarities and Differences
Union and non-union employee representation both allow workers to express ideas, suggestions, and concerns while taking part in employee decisions, and for their voices to be heard. Furthermore, they facilitate harmonious workplace relations by encouraging communication between employees and management and avoiding conflicts as well as contributing to workers’ engagement (CIPD, 2024). They do differ, however, in power and influence. Unions exist with legal backing and collective bargaining rights to allow them to negotiate the terms of employment and to take industrial action, for example, strikes, if the need arises. On the contrary, non-union representation is based upon voluntary cooperation from management without legal enforcement. Furthermore, unions have means to escalate disputes through formal negotiation and industrial action while non-union mechanisms work through open discussions and management goodwill to resolve workplace problems, thereby limiting their influence on shaping employment conditions (Acas, 2022).
1.3
Arguments Suggesting that Employee Voice Leads to Better Organisational Performance
Employee voice improves organisational performance by driving engagement, innovation, and productivity. According to Broderick (2024), employees are more likely to be committed and experience higher levels of job satisfaction if they feel heard, which leads to lower turnover. In the public sector, where staff input can increase operational effectiveness, employees who are engaged contribute ideas that improve efficiency and service delivery. This is further supported by Busher (2019) who explains that open dialogue also facilitates decision making, providing management with insights from the frontline staff who directly encounter service users. For example, ensuring employee voice in the merger can assist with identifying challenges during integration, enabling leadership to address these concerns before they escalate. Lastly, Ranjan & Jhaveri (2025) assert that employee voice, through structured employee forums and representation mechanisms promote transparency, trust and a collaborative work culture and thereby contribute to organisational effectiveness and post-merger stability.
Arguments that Question the Relationship
Although employee voice is appreciated, its effect on performance is not always positive or guaranteed. This is explained by Wilson (2024) stating that in fast changing environments, excessive consultation can slow down decision making and result in inefficiencies. If not properly managed, employee voice mechanisms can lead to conflict rather than cohesion as different opinions may end up creating tensions between employees and leadership. Furthermore, Muller-Heyndyk (2024) pointed out that organisations with weak leadership may find it difficult to act upon employee feedback, which may result in frustration and reduced engagement. Failing to integrate employee feedback into meaningful action by new leadership could make employees doubt the effectiveness of their participation and begin to lose their trust and morale towards the organisation (CIPD, 2025a).
Judgements
Employee voice and organisational performance is a complex relationship with both benefits and challenges. On one hand, effective employee voice mechanisms lead to employee engagement, innovation and trust, which help improve organisational performance. However, poorly managed or excessive consultation can result in frustration, and impact decision making (Acas, 2020). In the case study, integrating structured employee voice channels, for example, joint consultation committees, allows for a more balanced approach that receives staff input, without disrupting operational efficiency. Ultimately, it depends on the leader’s commitment to employee voice and the organisation’s ability to act on feedback in a meaningful way.
1.4
Concept of Better Working Lives
According to CIPD (2020a), better working lives…
Please click the link herein to access this assessment in full
